Minutes of the University Senate
meeting November 28, 2007
Present:
A. Adell, C. Bengston, G. Berk, P. Boye,
H. Briston, C. Cherry, M. Chong*,
A. Coles-Bjerre, R. Davies, P. Gilkey, A. Gladhart, N. Gulley, E.
Herman, D. Hernandez, J, Hunter*, K. Kennedy, D. Levin, P. Lu, B. Malle, A.
Mathas, T. Minner, J. Newton, D. Olson, A. Papailiou, C. Parsons, S. Paul, E.
Peterson, N. Rajabzadeh, M.
Redford, G. Sayre, T. Toadvine, P. van Donkelaar, L. Vandenburgh. *=non-voting
participant
Excused:
R. Bramhall, L-S. Chou, D. Falk, P. Lambert, A.
Schulz , L. Stephen, N. Tublitz,.
Absent:
C.A. Bassett, C. Martinez*, L. Middlebrook, C.
Moore, M. Pangburn, F. Pyle, P. Rounds, J. Rowell, A. Taylor
CALL TO
ORDER
The last
regular senate meeting of fall term was called to order at 3:06 p.m. in 180
PLC. Approval of the minutes from
the November 14, 2007 meeting were postponed until the next meeting, January 9,
2008.
STATE
OF THE UNIVERSITY
Update
on UO programs in Portland. Provost Brady provided a visual
presentation of the UO’s activities in Portland (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/
Brady28Nov07.pdf). She opened
her remarks by noting that the UO has been engaged in Portland for a long
period of time. The Law School
opened in 1884, and the medical school (which is no longer part of the UO)
opened in 1887. The UO has been
involved in a number of activities in Portland over the years. Portland will provide a new home for many
of our programs in spring 2008. One
of the reasons Portland is so important to the UO is that eight of the 10 top
feeder high schools to the UO are in the Portland area. Further, given the diversity of greater
Portland, the Portland high schools are very important in enhancing our
diversity. More than 40% of our UO
graduates move to the Portland area after graduation – we have over
32,000 alums in the Portland area.
The provost explained that the UO has entered a partnership and has an 18
year lease on the White Stage building with an option to purchase it in 2016.
The
provost went on to say there are a number of program areas in Portland. Specific criteria were considered in
making decisions about how best to deliver programs and what programs make the
most sense. Most importantly, whatever
the UO does in Portland must be consistent with the institutional mission of
the UO as a member of the AAU. She
also noted that what we do in Portland needs to be built on our strengths and
our particular niches to enable us to offer an array of high quality programs
that do not duplicate programs of other institutions, including PSU. Provost Brady said that any program we
propose needs to be based on a sound business plan and the ability over a 5
year period to become self supporting and self sustaining. Another reason that Portland is
extremely important is that it provides an urban “laboratory” for
many of our professional school programs.
Examples
of major academic initiatives in Portland include programs in the School of
Architecture and Allied Arts. The
provost noted that the UO has the only accredited architecture program in the
state and there is a real demand from the Portland architecture community for
our presence there. Another example
is the School of Journalism and Communication in which many of their students
spend a term of their senior year in internship activities. A new professional master’s in
strategic communication is being offered in Portland. We are also collaborating with PSU for the Oregon Executive
MBA (OEMBA), which is in great demand.
The School of Law offers continuing education classes as well.
Another
example of the importance of our presence in Portland relates to research and
innovation, such as ONAMI, OTRADI, BEST, ETIC, and OTREC. We also work with OHSU on collaborative activities,
and the Material Science Institute is in partnership with PSU. The Center for
Housing Innovation is active in Portland; with its commitment to sustainability
there are real opportunities for our students and faculty, there.
Social
sciences and humanities outreach are also engaged in Portland. The Center for the Study of Women in
Society, the Oregon Humanities Center, the Center for Applied Second Language
Studies, Center on Diversity and Community, the Institute for Policy Research
and Innovation all have programs involving the Portland location. Community service is another dimension
of our engagement in Portland, with the Labor Education and Research Center,
and the faculty and students in the College of Education heavily engaged in the
Portland area.
Emerging
opportunities in the Portland area include a new Material Studies and Product
Design degree recently authorization by the state board. The digital arts, urban architecture
research laboratories, the center for “green” business, the professional
master’s in strategic communication, and a securities analysis center are
newly offered or under development.
Because Portland is one of the financial centers on the west coast, we
have received strong support from the business and financial community for
these programs.
The
provost then listed several redevelopment partners that the UO is working with:
the Renaissance of Old Town/China Town Visions Committee, Mercy Corps, Portland
Development Commission, and the Portland Business Alliance. Our 10 year vision from the perspective
of our goals (i.e., to ensure that we engage a world class university with the
needs of a global city) is to emphasize graduate and professional education,
link the UO with the business and general community, and enrich the education
of students. The UO needs to be a
model of sustainability and social responsibility. The provost said that our presence in Portland should be a cultural
hub as well, so we will support lectures and community events. She stated that she sees the Portland
facility not simply as a building, but as a space in which we can intersect as
well as bring educational programs to Portland. The doors of the facility will be open by the end of March 2008
and she expects some classes to be offered in Spring Term, with the full
fledged grand opening in Fall 2008. Lastly, the provost said to contact Vice Provost Teri
Warpinski if you would like a tour of the Portland facilities.
During a
question and answer period, Senator Bertram Malle, psychology, indicated that
he has been involved with the UO’s presence in Bend where there are very
few resident faculty. He wondered
what the structure of faculty residence in Portland might look like in the
future. The provost replied that
what we bring to Portland is quality.
As we think about the kind of academic programs that are in Portland we need
to ensure they are of the same quality as those we deliver here in Eugene;
otherwise, there are other institutions that can deliver classes. And it would be a major mistake to try
to operate academic programs on the backs of adjunct faculty; they can play
important roles in professional programs, but part of what we have to figure
out is how we can creatively engage full time faculty based in Eugene in the
educational programs we offer in Portland. We may need to build in a distance component, that is, literally
try to figure out ways to relocate faculty for a term to Portland, engaging our
regular full time faculty. She
noted that the university does not plan on having an array of undergraduate
programs in Portland – if students want a UO undergraduate experience they
need to come to Eugene. Faculty
engagement in figuring out this element of the Portland presence is a crucial
one, and the provost said she’ll look to faculty such as Senator Malle
for help understanding the challenges involved.
Senator
Christian Cherry, dance, asked if part of the plan is to include the arts. The provost replied that is absolutely
the case. She commented that there
is a wonderful space for exhibits that can be used very effectively, and a goal
is to really think about how we can use the space to engage music and dance as
well.
REPORTS
Senate
Budget Committee – sub committee report on arena financing. Mr. John Chalmers, chair of the subcommittee, presented a progress
report on the arena project financing (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/ChalmersArena28Nov07.pdf).
He noted that committee members (John
Chalmers, Dennis Howard, and Gordon Sayre) have been working with Paul van
Donkelaar, Frances Dyke, Melinda Grier, Laura Hazlett, and Dave Sparks. The committee has been engaged in an effort
to evaluate projected revenues the arena might generate. These are really the crux of the arena
review. Unfortunately all of the
information has not yet been developed. So far, a set of major donors and long time season ticket
holders is being surveyed to assess their sensitivity to potential pricing
options for various seating options. Six groups (16-20 people in each) have been completed, two of
them in Portland and four in the Eugene-Springfield area, with at least two
more groups to be scheduled. These
groups provide valuable information, but the committee is still assessing what
it all means. Conventions, Sports
and Leisure (CLS) has developed a survey (from feedback from the focus groups) that
will be randomly sent to a sample of current football and/or men’s
basketball season ticket holders to assess willingness to pay what is proposed
for new season ticket prices. The
committee expects to have a projected revenue estimate report from CSL by
mid-December. Mr. Chalmers
commented that there is a lot more to be done in the revenue of projected
estimates area.
The
committee also is looking at arena costs by gathering cost estimates from
similar arenas built for college athletics and comparing them with the
UO’s plans. Capacity of the arena
is not finalized yet, but there is some discussion as to whether seating
capacity will be 15,000 or 12,500 seats.
The committee also has been exploring legal and tax concerns with some
bond and tax lawyers, with one additional discussion planned. Some preliminary analyses have been
done, but the committee needs all the information (the projected revenues) to
really get to the heart of the matter.
Lastly, the committee is considering the capital budgeting philosophy and
is evaluating reasons to build the arena, exploring campus building safety
issues, and exploring other capital building needs anticipated in the near
future (such as new dormitories) in order to study projective debt service to
overall budget ratios. All of
these issues will be included in the committee’s final report.
Mr.
Chalmers then provided a tentative timeline of relevant activities: December 10th
-- CSL to deliver revenue estimates; December 16th -- distribute
preliminary draft (or soon thereafter) to the president, the working committee,
and Senate Budget Committee (for input, corrections, clarification, and
comments); December 17th -- plan to update budget committee on
findings to date and provide outline draft of final report (and hope to seek
provisional adoption of the report); December 27th -- deliver draft final report to Senate
Budget Committee and President’s Office with chance to comment on
statements of facts; January 7th -- confer with Faculty Advisory Council; January 8th
-- issue a final report with the Senate Budget Committee’s adoption or
non-adoption. January 9th
is the next senate meeting and the committee will present the final Senate
Budget Committee report on that date. Mr. Chalmers concluded his report saying that the important
dates are January 18-19 when the state legislature’s Ways and Means
Committee meets and will discuss the arena project. Lastly, a special session of the University Senate is
scheduled for January 23rd to provide an opportunity to debate and
discuss the report after everyone has had a chance to digest it.
Preliminary
Fall 2007 Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking,
chair of the Committee on Courses, noted only a few minor edits in the
preliminary curriculum report: the first involves moving a course to a new
position in the report. The course
under the College Scholars Program is moved to the College of Arts and Sciences
Program. Also, in the listing for EDST
661, the word “From” should be added to the course title so that it
reads, “EDST 661: From Reproduction to Resistance”. With no other corrections or
objections, the report was approved, as amended, by voice vote. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/CurRptF08Fin.pdf
for the final version of the Fall 2007 Curriculum Report).
ANNOUNCEMENTS
AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Charge
and Appointments to the Joint Senate/Academic Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee for On-Line
Course Evaluations and Implementation. President
Sayre announced that he has appointed and charged an ad hoc committee for
on-line course evaluation implementation whose membership includes: Paul van
Donkelaar, Brad Shelton, Russ Tomlin, Bertram Malle, Priscilla Southwell, Ray
King, Kassia Dellabough, Sue Eveland, Zoe Roman, and Gordon Sayre. The general charge is to review and
revise as needed the 10 new required course evaluation questions, to review the
results of the trial run of the of the initial implementation of on-line
evaluations, and draft the appropriate senate legislation to adopt and
implement the on-line evaluations for the campus (see the senate committees web
page for text of the ad hoc committee’s charge http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/comsen078.html).
Mr. Brad
Shelton, mathematics, reported that midway through the on-line course
evaluation trial process there is a 30% response rate (trial groups were the
business school and departments of mathematics and political science), which is
very encouraging. Senator David
Levin, mathematics noted that there were no junior faculty members on the ad
hoc committee, to which President Sayre said he would look into adding a junior
faculty member or solicit input. A
student senator asked if the students will have access to all 10 required
questions. The president replied
that would not be known definitely until the committee had done its work and
the questions and their implementation was passed by the senate – part of
the committee’s charge is to make recommendations on that issue as well
as many others.
IFS
representative position is open. President
Sayre noted that there is an open position on the Interinstitutional Faculty
Senate available for a term that runs from January 2008 through December 2010. This is a position elected by the
senate, and is open to any member of the voting faculty. The UO has three representatives on the
IFS; Mr. John Nicols and Senator Peter Gilkey are the other two
representatives. The next IFS
meeting will be held on the UO campus the first Friday and Saturday in February
2008.
Lastly,
the secretary reminded the senators that senate meetings winter term will be
held in 150 Columbia.
NEW
BUSINESS
Motion
US07/08-3 to abolish certain standing University Committees and to change the
names of other standing university committees that report to the University
Senate. Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, brought
the following motion to the floor:
Moved that: Effective upon passage of this motion by the
University of Oregon Senate:
Senator
Gilkey spoke to the motion first by saying that there is no financial impact to
the motion, and that it simply seeks senate action to approve officially
committee changes which in practice have already been implemented. He further explained that over the
years, various bodies in the university have made defacto changes to the nomenclature and
existence of certain standing university committees, and that such changes
require appropriate sanction by the University Senate. Senate Gilkey noted that some committees
no longer function or meet, but haven’t been officially disbanded, others
have had name changes through OARs, and so forth. For the most part, the motion is to standardize some “housekeeping”
to keep the senate records and web pages accurate and current. (Specific, more in-depth explanations
of the changes can be found at the bottom of the web page for the motion at http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-3.html.)
Senator Gilkey
provide a brief explanation for the proposed abolishment of the International
Affairs Committee and the Status of Women Committee, saying that in practice
neither committee has had any members nor met for several years. Similarly, proposed name changes
(Student Conduct Committee to Student Conduct and Community Standards
Committee; NTTIF to NTTF) of committees and their respective charges have
changed, as has the charge of the Environmental Issues Committee; the proposed
motion formally recognizes these changes.
During a
discussion period, a clarifying question was raised regarding the Status of
Women Committee. Mr. Dave Hubin
explained that three years ago the chair of the committee, Ms. Caroline
Forrell, law, had not been clear on the function of the committee or its agenda
and charge. The Committee on
Committees, who appoints the member, asked the committee to work on this issue;
the committee did so and responded to the Committee on Committees that the Status
of Women Committee did not have a rational or specific function, and thus they
requested that the committee be disbanded. The Committee on Committees agreed and has not appointed any
new members, but the request was not formally processed by the senate, which
the current motion does. Senators
Toadvine and Cherry were concerned that abolishing the committee was too strong
an action. Senator Gilkey replied
that if there was renewed interest by the faculty for reconstituting the
committee, they could do so by bringing the rational for the committee and its new
charge back to the senate to be re-established. But for the past three years, the committee has not had any faculty
interest or membes, so it is disingenuous to keep a committee on the books that
does not actually meet. Although
it was suggested that some aspects of the charge may have been subsumed under
other committees, such as those dealing with diversity, and that the Committee
on Committees did a major review of committees a few years ago, there were
several other senators (e.g., Malle and Gulley) who also expressed concern
about abolishing the Status of Women Committee.
With the
discuss coming to a close, the question was called and motion US07/08-3 was put
to a hand vote. The motion
passed with 18 senators in favor, and 7 senators opposed.
Motion US
07/08-2 to enable the University Senate to call a meeting of the University
Assembly with full legislative authority, set the time of the meeting and
establish a quorum and voting requirements. Mr.
Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, explained that earlier in the day he had
received work of a document from the state’s Department of Justice (dated
November 14, 2003) that had made a ruling four years ago whose contents might
directly affect the motion he intended to put forward. Considering this circumstance, Mr.
Stahl felt is was best to delay any action on his motion. Senator Peter Gilkey then moved to table
Mr. Stahl’s motion to a time certain, January 9, 2008. The motion to table was seconded and
the senate unanimously passed the motion to table US07/08-2 until the January
9, 2008 meeting. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-2.html
for the text of US07/08-2).
Resolution
07/08-8 concerning the reduction in the ORP employer contribution rate for Tier
3 employees. Senator David Levin, mathematics, brought
the follow motion to the floor:
In July of 2007 the employer contribution level for the
members of the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) Tier 3 dropped from 8.04% to
5.82%. By comparison, the employer contribution level for all other ORP members
(Tiers 1 and 2) is 16.01% (down from 16.75%). Simply put, the faculty that
joined the University of Oregon after August of 2003 receive less than 37% of
the employer retirement contribution as those who were hired before this date.
In view of this, the decision to significantly reduce (by more than 27%) the
contribution for Tier 3 members is a cause for serious concern. As is clear
from the numbers, this change has a disproportionate impact upon the Tier 3
employees, who already receive the least benefit. Moreover, in light of recent
difficulties in recruitment and retention, this should worry all members of the
university community, as all new hires will be classified as Tier 3. Therefore,
Be it resolved,
That the University Senate of the University of Oregon
urges the university administration to work with the Oregon University System
and the State Legislature to restore the benefits for Tier 3 employees to their
previous level.
Senator
Levin began his support of the motion by saying that he realizes the issue of
benefits is complicated by state laws, and that it may be not a trivial matter
to restore the benefits as urged in the resolution. However, he felt strongly that the administration should
look into the matter and give this request due consideration. He highlighted in particular the large
discrepancy in retirement plan contributions for employees who were hired after
2003 (Tier 3) and who opted for the Optional Retirement Plan, compared with the
Tier 1 and 2 employees who made the same retirement plan choice. He remarked that it is very
discouraging for the newest (and generally lower paid employees) to be so
disadvantaged, and may well hurt future faculty recruitment and retention. Senator Levin noted, too, that he understood
that the issue was indeed complex in that the OPR was linked with the PERS
rates, and that there is recent legislative history regarding what PERS can and
cannot do. But in the end, he
opined, the Tier 3 ORP people were being treated unfairly.
Mr. Ernie
Pressman, human resources and chief benefits administrator, provided some
explanation and history of the ORP, saying the plan was established in 1995 by
the state legislature and that OUS is the only state agency with a retirement benefit
plan option in lieu of PERS. At
that time, the PERS employer contribution rates were tied to the ORP employer
rates, and they did not foresee the financial difficulty PERS experiences in 2003/2004,
which had to do with PERS ability to fund future employee retirements and
caused PERS to undertake a large bond (and its debt). Mr. Pressman noted that Tier 3 people for both PERS and ORP are
in a less expensive plan to fund, and that is where employer rates come from. So one of things the legislature did
was to say future benefits for people in Tier 3 are going to cost less, and
thus the employer does not fund indebtedness for Tiers 1 and 2; that is one of
reasons future benefits are going to be less and that reduces ORP rates.
Senator
Levin asked if it is a standard actuarial practice to link the ORP with the
PERS. In his opinion it does not
make any sense. Mr. Pressman
answered that he did not know about actuarial practice – he was only
reporting was the legislature did and to explain why the rates were as they
were. Senator Levin replied that
he simply was asking that the inequity be fixed. Mr. Pressman replied that one thing that must be done to fix
the problem is to decouple the PERS rates from ORP rates; he noted though, that
decoupling the rates was proposed in 2004 and was opposed by the faculty (most
of whom are in Tiers 1 and 2). Mr.
Pressman noted that the Chancellor had indicated in 2006 that a committee would
look into the matter of decoupling.
There was general agreement among senators that the issue is a serious
one for some faculty members in particular, and that a gap had developed for
faculty members in Tier 3 who selected the ORP retirement option.
With
the discussion coming to a close, Resolution US07/08-8 was put to a voice vote
and passed unanimously.
Notice
of Motion concerning the financing of the proposed basketball arena. The secretary, on behalf of Senator Nathan Tublitz,
biology, who could not attend the meeting, said that she had received notice
from Senator Tublitz of his intent to make a motion regarding the financing for
the proposed basketball arena.
Senator Tublitz anticipates that there may be necessary senate action
after the Senate Budget Committee’s sub committee on arena financing report
is distributed in late December or early January. The secretary commented that Senator Tublitz was concerned
about timing involved for the senate to be able to read and act on the report,
and thus notice of a motion was given now.
ADJOURNMENT
With no
other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary
of the Faculty
| Web page spun on 07 January 2007 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |